Talk:Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978

Suitable titles

Which one would be the most suitable title for this page...

• Public Safety Act
• Public Safety Act, 1978
• Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act
• Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978

DTM (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Kautilya3: any inputs for the title? DTM (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

"Jammu and Kashmir" should be definitely there. I believe there are (and were) other PSA's in India. The legal folks like putting the year at the end. So, the last alternative fits the bill.

I, however, think the page should be more generally on Preventive detention in Jammu and Kashmir. One of those, called "Public Security Act", was passed in Maharaja's time, was used liberally by Sheikh Abdullah to jail all his opponents, until he himself got jailed under it. Then he essentially re-enacted it under a different name. Timber merchants! What a lame excuse! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

With the bibliography provided, especially Bhat's summary in Insight Turkey, it made understanding the background much easier. As for timber merchants... I added "supposedly" for now "to supposedly help stop the timber mafia". DTM (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, how many laws are there currently in place that allow/are used for preventive detention in JK? Accordingly I can spend time on Preventive detention in Jammu and Kashmir as a separate article rather than just within this one. DTM (talk) 11:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

It is hard to say. As far as internal laws are concerned, there has been only one actively operational at any given time: Public Security Act, 1946; Preventive Detention Act, 1954; Public Safety Act, 1978. Nobody tells us whether the old laws had been repealed or had expired and if so when. But, a number of central laws had also been used in J&K. I don't know the precise details. The AFSPA is the most notorious. The general impression is that anybody can be arrested on the grounds of only suspicions, tortured and possibly killed off. Did you see Haider (film)? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, yes I have seen Haider. I didn't really like the movie as a whole; though some parts are unforgettable of course. Shahid Kapoor's monologue being one. I even did a video analysis of that once long back. Talking about Haider, why does this conversation remind you of the movie? DTM (talk) 07:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a 1978 law enacted by Sheikh Abdullah was eventually used to detain his son and his his grandson?

Source: "Dozens of politicians, including three former chief ministers -- Farooq Abdullah and his son Omar Abdullah"(Livemint IANS), "Farooq arrested under four-decade old law enacted by his father Sheikh Abdullah" Economic Times

• Reviewed: Littlefield Fountain

Created by DiplomatTesterMan (talk). Self-nominated at 13:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC).

• Will expand shortly to meet minimum size requirements, forgot that quotes aren't included. DTM (talk) 13:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I added some sources in the Bibliography. The article is at the moment quite substandard. It says practically nothing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Did a little expansion with the help of the bibliography provided above. Although minimum DYK nom character requirements are met, the article yet has more to say; rather it is yet to speak. DTM (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the article is speaking/squeaking a little now. DTM (talk) 09:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The article is new enough (nominated a week after it got started) and plenty long enough. I've done a bit of minor tweaking myself. Referencing is detailed. PQ not done (yet). Earwig's Copyvio Detector is happy. There are a number of issues around the hook. Firstly, the relevant sentence in the article ought to be reworded as it contains the word "including" twice. Secondly, the article does not say that Farooq Abdullah and Omar Abdullah are the son and grandson of Sheikh Abdullah, respectively. Thirdly, while this nomination contains a source for the father-son relationship, is there such a source in the article itself? Please point me to it. Schwede66 01:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Schwede66, sorting out the three issues:

1. Double word issue sorted.
2. A recent edit to the article with a summary as “linking the family” links the three Abdullah's.
3. Third issue covered above.

QPQ also started. DTM (talk) 07:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Good to go. Schwede66 09:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, I came by to promote this, and added a few tags in places that weren't clear. I also edited out the POV language. It seems to me you are taking quite a non-neutral stance in this article. You are branding the act as wrong from the get-go and include no other opinion as to its usefulness. The History section is almost unreadable; it seems to me that here you should discuss the initial purpose of the law to stop the timber mafia (whatever that means). Anything else you can do to tone down the critical nature of this article will help. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yoninah, I will make the edits. Thanks for the suggestions. Just one point...  is rape useful? is child pornography useful? is chopping hands off for fun useful? NO. somethings are  just not to be entertained to make the article NPOV. At least with what I have understood of Wikipedia so far. Now I will go ahead and fix the article. DTM (talk) 10:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Yoninah: I have made some changes to the article trying to fix all issues raised. DTM (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• Request new review. Thank you. DTM (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you, the article looks much better now! And the hook has always been a good one. I tweaked the piped links. Restoring tick per Schwede66's review. Yoninah (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality

I reviewed this article for DYK and found it to be very non-neutral. The act is being branded as wrong from the start and there are no alternate opinions as to its usefulness. The History section is almost unreadable; it seems to me that here should be discussed the initial purpose of the law to stop the timber mafia (whatever that means). Anything else that can be done to tone down the critical nature of this article would help. Yoninah (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Will sort out. Thanks for bringing this up. DTM (talk) 13:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I have just edited the introduction section of the Act, there is in effect National Security Act (India) in many states which is similar to the said Act.

Please take some time to review the same. TIA. Santoshdts (talk) 12:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Santoshdts, the edit was very useful. But please remember not to pick up lines word for word. I have gone ahead and paraphrased it a little. Thanks. DTM (talk) 08:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Commentary deleted without explanation

Ashlesh007, you provided no explanation for deleting the expert commentary in this edit. If this was a mistake, can you please restore the material? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, hey there, yes, I was in the process of editing and organizing it in a proper section but I lost track of the portion, I intend to add the portion back under the related section as soon as possible. On a side-note, I intend to add the sections about the Criticism of the Detaining Authorities and the Advisory Boards, how do I do it while ensuring the neutrality point of view? -- Ashlesh007 (talk) 11:28 AM, 4 April 2020 (IST)

You need to first put the old criticism section back, and then expand it with whatever you want. Please assume that most of your content will be eventually condensed by more experienced editors because it needs to be in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE for it to be encyclopaedic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thank you, I will restore the old portion first. Ashlesh007 (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you please sort out your edits... a bit.

@Ashlesh007: please could you sort out your edits to this article a bit. Maybe a little less detailing, more summarizing, whitespaces need sorting out, and the image has little relevance. DTM (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@DiplomatTesterMan:hey there, I guess you are referring to the file, its the ICCPR treaty document, to which India is a signatory, and PSA violates a big chunk of it. Also can you please give an example as in what to summarize and how ? I am relatively new to editing on wikipedia. Ashlesh007 (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I tried to put the last edit up again with a little less detailing, does it look right to you ? Compare the edits here

Ashlesh007 (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ashlesh007: First, writing "I am relatively new to editing on wikipedia" is no excuse for mistakes, especially when you have chosen to enter this kind of topic area as a volunteer. (That being said - WP:PLEASEBITE). Let's get down to some work:

1. Please copyedit the text you have entered for unnecessary periods, spaces where spaces are not required, bold where bold is not required etc. I have already requested this once above.
2. Please remove the fullstop from the subheader here "Critical sections of the Act that violate international human rights."
3. "PSA violates a big chunk of it" is still no reason to have that as an image (WP:Undue/WP:RSUW). Not only undue to PSA, but undue to everything else that PSA violates.
4. Please use one formatting throughout for "J&K". The full form I assume would be alright.
5. I suggest you summarise the "Role of Advisory Boards" and "Role of Detaining Authorities" This section doesn't need sub-headers and excessive detailing.
6. Can you please minimise the amount of quoted matter from the act. What is the point of having the entire act here, when the entire act is already online. Please try and provide more summaries, I am repeating this but can't over emphasize it.

(edit) More to come...

DTM (talk) 12:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@DiplomatTesterMan: hey there, thanks for pointing out the mistakes,

1. Edited all the extra spaces, bolds and unnecessary punctuation marks, atleast the one's I could find, please point out if I forget any of them.

Ashlesh007, there is really no hope in going ahead with this if you can't even find extra spaces in your own edit. Please check again. DTM (talk) 08:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

You missed some periods and whitespaces. I went ahead and did a bit of cleaning up. Please remember to follow MOS:LQ.

@DiplomatTesterMan: Thank you, it was a bit confusing while editing at first, I guess I know better now how to deal with whitespaces, will keep that in mind.

Thanks again, Ashlesh007 (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

1. done
2. Talking about the ICCPR violations, I don't feel that it is undue. The PSA's violation of ICCPR is a prominent viewpoint, but okay, I will remove the file.
3. I am sorry, I don't understand what you imply by formatting for "J&K"

Ashlesh007, towards the top of the article "Jammu and Kashmir" is written in full, not in short. While using the short form "J&K" is not wrong, and is generally understood by all those who read article on this region, nevertheless it would be best to add "Jammu and Kashmir (J&K)" to the article before using the short form, or just using the full form consistently throughout.

@DiplomatTesterMan: Okay, so you mean to imply, (J&K) should be added to the very first use of Jammu and Kashmir in the article?

DTM (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

1. the detailing is important, as in the Advisory Boards and the Detaining Authorities play a role of significance when it comes to the PSA, and as much as the History, or the very text of the act is important, so is the role of these two. Since entire execution of the act, comes down to these two. All the prominent sources critical of the act, put an emphasis on the role of the advisory boards and the Detaining Authorities. Please let me know your thoughts about it.
2. I will look into it, and minimize all the quoted matter that isn't necessary. I have used it at places to give clear context, but I understand that the entire act isn't required on the article.
3. let me know what else I can improve, and I was hoping to add criticism of the police department with respect to the PSA, I will try to keep it as simple as possible.
4. Also, I have been trying to contact few photographers asking them to put up related pictures from Kashmir, but so far no progress. Can you recommend any platform on the internet which has open licence images, or the one which the wiki editors tend to use.

Again, thank you for pointing out the errors, I look forward to collaborating with you.

Ashlesh007 (talk) 16:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Ashlesh007 Thanks for the progress so far! DTM (talk) 11:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)